SF2854 is “a bill for an act relating to public safety; prohibiting persons from assisting the federal government to indefinitely detain certain persons; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statues, chapter 1,”

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary except paragraph (b), no agency or employee of the state, including all political subdivisions, acting in the agency’s or employee’s official capacity, and no member of the Minnesota National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency, agent, or employee of the federal government, or any corporation providing services to the federal government in any investigation, prosecution, detention, or transfer to a foreign jurisdiction or a person within the state pursuant to sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, or the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40, enacted in 2001, or any other provision of federal law which purports to authorize the indefinite detention, military tribunal, or transfer to a foreign jurisdiction of a person within the state of Minnesota..”

This bill would ban the state of Minnesota from cooperating with any federal attempts at indefinite detention within the state.

Minnesota Senator Branden Petersen introduced the bill, and provided the following reasoning for the bill’s inception:

“It is important to reaffirm the rights of all people against unconstitutional detention. In a nation that has been engaged in ongoing foreign entanglements for well over a decade coupled with disturbing revelations of state 4th amendment violations, all citizens must remain vigilant in defense of our liberties. We cannot let war or terrorism become a catch-all for the abridgement of constitutional rights.”

All of these states are following James Madison’s blueprint for stopping federal overreach. In The Federalist #46, heargued that a “refusal to comply with officers of the Union”along with other actions at the state and local level would create a situation where the federal government would have an almost impossible time enforcing their acts. When several states join together and do the same, Madison said it would “present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it will be debated. If the bill passes, Minnesota could join Alaska, California, Michigan, and Virginia, which have passed similar laws in the last two years.

ACTION ITEMS

If you live in Minnesota: click HERE for the steps you need to take to support SF2854

If you live in another state: Click HERE for information on how to fight back against indefinite detention in your state.

]]>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/minnesota-legislature-considering-liberty-preservation-act-against-ndaa/feed/0Where is the Power to Suspend Habeas Corpus?http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/where-is-the-power-to-suspend-habeas-corpus/
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/where-is-the-power-to-suspend-habeas-corpus/#commentsMon, 19 Aug 2013 07:01:14 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=17029The Constitution’s Suspension Clause (Art. I, Section 9, cl. 2) limits when the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended. But the Constitution doesn’t seem to grant the federal government power to suspend the writ in the first place. Why not? And why limit a power never given?

In an Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal piece, constitutional law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkrantz infers that Congress has the sole suspension authority from the structure of the constitutional text. He writes:

“Since the Suspension Clause appears in Article I of the Constitution, which is predominately about the powers of Congress, there is a strong argument that only Congress can suspend the habeas writ.”

He concludes that when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ, he probably intruded on Congress’s prerogative, and thereby exceeded his constitutional authority. (Professor Rosenkrantz also gives Lincoln credit for trying to cure the constitutional defect.)

This is largely correct, but the organization of the text is not the sole reason. When read in legal and historical context, the language of the Constitutiondoes give the federal government authority to suspend the writ.

Here’s why: At the time of the Founding, suspending habeas was a recognized incident of war powers—repeatedly resorted to both by Parliament and by the Continental Congress. When the Constitution granted Congress authority to declare war, this grant carried with it the incidental power to suspend the writ. (The Necessary and Proper Clause confirmed this.) For more on that, see my book The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, pp. 106-07.

The President’s power to serve as commander-in-chief also carried with it incidental authority to suspend the writ. (The Necessary and Proper Clause doesn’t apply to the President, but for other reasons the doctrine of incidental powers does.) However, the President’s suspension authority was limited to the actual theater of war. See p. 134.

Thus, Professor Rosenkranz was correct to conclude that Lincoln exceeded this authority by suspending the writ over large areas outside the war theater.